I am starting a new thread on the subject here. For reference, you can find the link to the previous thread below.

Support for abortion waning - Poll results show 72% of women say abortions in the second trimester should not be legal!

-- Stop The Murder (abortion@kills_our_kids.com), June 21, 2000

Answers

J (Y2J@home.comm)

"Is your idea of the future a happy family, or two incomes and a lot of stuff? I'm betting that in your life, education=future employment=material wealth. You killed your baby so you could have more stuff. Wow. My children think that it's very fortunate that I take my commitment to them very seriously, and that I take my commitment to acquiring more material things lightly. Too bad for your unborn child that your priorities are so warped."

Ape

J, you're making a lot of assumptions here. The lady hasn't said anything about her idea of future, you're simply condemning her out of hand for what you THINK it might be. Maybe you feel inferior because you didn't go to grad school?

Ape here is what the lady said earlier:

To be perfectly clear, we were not using abortion as birth control. We had a method of contraception which failed us, which necessitated an abortion. We did not feel ready to start a family on any level, emotional included. If we had continued with the pregnancy, it would have destroyed my career, possibly destroyed oour marriage, and saddled us with almost insurmountable debt (we had student loans and no insurance). Maybe YOU think these are ideal circumstances to raise a child, but we do not. Just because someone is able to have children doesn't mean they should.

-- Keep Abortion Legal (not@all.sorry), April 26, 2000.

-- Stop The Murder (abortion@kills_our_kids.com), June 21, 2000.

Link: Keep Abortion Legal (not@all.sorry), April 26, 2000

-- Stop The Murder (abortion@kills_our_kids.com), June 21, 2000.

Um...are you avoiding the question I asked in the previous thread?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 21, 2000.

Hi Anita, nice to chat with you again!

Um...are you avoiding the question I asked in the previous thread?

Not at all. ...didn't know you were directing it towards me. If so, I think I have answered this questionback on April 28 when eve asked a very similar question.

I'll be bugging out for the day/night. I'll be back sometime tomorrow.

See ya...

-- Stop The Murder (abortion@kills_our_kids.com), June 21, 2000.

"In an earlier post, I asked if you were saying that it should be legal for a woman not to feed her baby because someone else could. Could you answer that question for me?"

Sure. It should be illegal for ANYONE to cause the death of another seperate being. It should not be illegal for anyone to alter their body.

"I am sorry for any man or woman that has to make these kinds of decisions. I have always been extremely careful (and I don't mean abstinence) and haven't been faced with these issues personally."

Lucky you, Keep. I have met many, many women who have not been so lucky. No birth control is 100% effective. Mistakes can and do happen.

"Nonetheless (??), whether it's an unwanted pregancy that interferes with your plans, or an accident, or illness or death of a family member, we can't always have what we planned for or want."

Just because someone has a car accident does not mean that they can't get their car fixed. Just because someone has an illness doesn't mean they can't get well. Why should someone who has an unwanted pregnancy be forced to continue in that situation?

"But don't expect that I think it's ok to terminate a pregnancy for convenience, other obligations, money, marriage (or lack thereof), etc. That's MY choice."

Isn't freedom of choice a wonderful thing? Aren't you glad no one's trying to threaten yours?

"The only reason I'm here now is to ask why NO ONE is questioning the women who get to partial-term and have such significant problems that either their life or the life of a fetus that may live a day or two are exchanged if a law like this passes. "

Good point, Anita. I volunteer as a clinic escort at a clinic which performs second trimester abortions. I only know of one woman who has had such a procedure done, and in that case it was because the fetus had horrible birth defects (three sets of chomosomes instead of two) and was dying in utero. The pregnancy was definately a wanted, planned pregnancy and it was heartbreaking for her to go through with the procedure.

"Does anyone here know any woman who decided to NOT HAVE an abortion, had the baby, and now regrets her choice?"

Yes, indirectly. My fiancee is a social worker who works with children surrendered for adoption. Many women express regret over having gone through with the pregnancy, including one who had to have a hysterectomy as a result of the birth.

"She is now over 50, never had kids, never married and talks baby talk to her Lhasa apso."

Lots of people do that. My mom has a husband and children and talks baby talk to her pets (two cats and a dog). A VP I know has pictures of her four kids on her desk, but the biggest picture in the best frame which is most visible belongs to his Irish setter.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), June 21, 2000.

Tarzan:

The anti-abortionists don't want to discuss the folks who make the grueling decisions. It must be easy for them to dismiss folks as wanting more.

In response to another question: Yeah...I knew a lady who regretted her abortion. She was the sister of my mom's sisters husband. She was a foreigner to this country [heh.....like my folks weren't foreigners to this country.] She had a son approximately 25 years old, another son approximately 20 years old, and another son about my age...11?

This was before Roe vs. Wade. They told me that she died because her son was to be married [which he was], and in the culture from which she came, it was considered dishonorable to be pregnant as the mother of the groom. I'm more inclined these days to believe that she thought herself menopausal and that pregnancy couldn't happen. I have no idea if this cultural thing is true for Germans.

All that aside, however, her youngest son and I sat listening to folks talk about her death. We weren't allowed in the room, so sat behind a wall [dictionary in hand], listening. What's an abortion? I dunno. [look it up.] What's a quack? I dunno. [look it up.]

Some of you may want to go back to the back-alley coathanger days, but I sure don't. Women HAVE, and ALWAYS WILL seek abortions. If you think you're saving lives by encouraging illegality of abortions, I suggest that you're as misguided as the folks who think drug laws keep folks from "using." The underground will ALWAYS be there to fill every need. They just won't be in a position to do it honorably.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 21, 2000.

Yes Anita, you are so right. It's very easy to be sanctimonious and self-righteous when it's not you. I had two orphan cousins raised by their great aunt, because their mother got an illega abortion and died. Nobody seems to give a damn about the mothers. I guess the God-Squad thinks it's justice for them to leave little children motherless, and die horrible deaths.

It must be a very lofty, holier-than-than feeling to be so secure in your rightness. And yes abortions have been going on since the first days of man. In fact the Egyptians were rather sophisticated in this practice, just as they were excellent embalmers of the dead. In earlier days, there wasn't as much stigma attached to abortion. We have the ignorant as dog-shit religious right crowd to thank for that chicken-shit attitude. They're such believers in hell, I hope they burn in it. Of course I don't believe in hell so they'll probably just rot and stink up the atmosphere.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), June 21, 2000.

Anita and Tarzan,

I was only asking a question. I have never personally known or have even heard of a woman who regretted NOT having an abortion, ie who wish the child they gave birth to was dead. I have known women who regretted HAVING had an abortion. I have also known women who have had abortions and do not seem to regret it.

My friend who talks to her Lhaso apso does so because she gives it the love she can never give a biological child. I don't believe she thinks she committed murder. I do know she regrets her CHOICE. I am a man who has never had biological children. Never will. Maybe for this reason, I hope that younger people will choose life. It's not true that there will always be time.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), June 21, 2000.

All.. I respect your opinions re: this and other important subject matters.

Altho I detest abortions, I am not totally insensitive to the plight of this most important decision (as witnessed in my previous post). I also mentioned that having not been in a position to have to make this choice, that I am lacking in some insightful perspective.

And, your point is well made that illegal abortions are not the answer either for obvious reasons.

My appeal is to sexually active women to take enough responsibility regarding their lives and bodies PRIOR to having relations that could result in pregnancy. It's simple but seemingly neglected as witnessed by the number of unwanted pregnancies and possible subsequent abortions.

There is no doubt in anyone's mind that parents that make the decision to terminate a pregnancy must be in agony, some for years. I defy you to find a woman who can say she feels 100% good about her abortion (robot types excluded).

My point is that just because someone is against abortions does not mean they are not sympathetic to an individual's cause.

Sanctimonious and self righteous are traits normally displayed by folks who feel very strongly about a subject. I don't mean to sound that way but I can say I am satisfied that the abortion issues have driven my ability to not put myself in the position to have to make this choice (huh?). No doubt it sounds like a nanny-nanny-boo-boo, but my intent is to instill a sense of responsibility by example. But, I will apologize (again) if my responses have caused anyone grief. What's done is done and we can only try to influence the future. In this subject, there are no answers on either "side" that can satisfy the many aspects of this situation (ooh like should the father have any say so? just stirring the pot!)

Lastly, you guys are doggone thought provoking, uninhibited, intelligent, thoughtful, enlightened, and darn hard to keep up with!! So...

-- keep the faith... (booann77@hotmail.com), June 21, 2000.

Since discussion seems to be continuing on the other thread I'm going to post this to both threads.

J, I'm not implying that I'm better than you because I have a PhD. I am saying that you don't know anything about the pressures and responsibilities that go along with it.

My idea of a future family is one in which both parents are reasonably happy, who have a sound marriage and who are mentally and financially stable and who are capable and happy to raise children. What is your idea of a family?

We chose to put off having a family because we knew we could not satisfy those criteria. We knew that under those circumstances, and at that time, we were not capable of being good parents. Unlike you, we believe that people who are not capable of making a full commitment to their children should not have them in the first place.

Frank, I don't know about the program you were in, but ours was entirely too demanding, and too dependant on research dollars, to take time off to have children. We were already half starving in graduate school, and our parents were already making enormous sacrifices to help us, in addition to the other money we recieved. While I am happy that you were able to make it work, I remain convinced that we could not. I do look forward to starting a family in the next year or two.

Keep the faith, while this was a difficult decision to make, and a physically painful one, it was not emotionally scaring. Even so it still pisses me off when people who have been lucky enough to never have had to make that decision just assume that the abortion was a decision of convenience.

-- Keep Abortion Legal (not@all.sorry), June 21, 2000.

Keep Abortion Legal,

On the other thread, you posted this same thing as "Tarzan the Ape Man", please try to keep your handles straight ;-)

Actually, we came out of school over 200k in debt, had put the rent on credit cards a couple of times while in school. By no means were "well off", but I think that if you REALLY wanted to get through, you could have.

Gilda,

Why are you so damn bitter all the time? Actually, I'd say I pull more than my share of the weight at work, but I was trying to emphasize my *priorities*. I think that in the professional world too many people care *only* about their career, and leave their kids with the nanny (which I don't think is in their best interests). So I take time off to go to the kids' games, so what? I make up the time after the kids are asleep.

He he, I guess I *am* fortunate that I can to some degree make a schedule for myself, but then that's a perk I've EARNED.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 21, 2000.

Tarzan,

I reread the other thread, and have got to hand it to you, from your prior posts (on other threads) I never would have guessed you were a woman (no offense).

Opened *my* eyes, but then I figured Lady Logic was a 13 year old boy!

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 21, 2000.

Frank-

I noticed she hadn't posted it on the other thread, and I thought I would help out. Unfortunately, I missed the last couple of lines. Sorry for the confusion.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), June 21, 2000.

If Tarzan is a woman, Frank, I've already had too many beers. I think you need to spend a bit more time reading.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 21, 2000.

Well, it's not the worst thing I've ever been called. I have to wonder if Frank would interact with me any differently if I really were a man.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), June 21, 2000.

"I have to wonder if Frank would interact with me any differently if I really were a man."

HOLY COW! I REALLY need to get some sleep! That should, of course, have said, "I have to wonder if Frank would interact with me any differently if I really were a WOman,".

Oh what a difference a couple of consonants make.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), June 21, 2000.

Anita,

On the other thread, "Keep Abortion Legal" said,

I had an abortion two years ago. My husband and I

-- Keep Abortion Legal

Now as "Tarzan" and "Keep Abortion Legal" both posted the same thing, and given the above comment I don't think it's unreasonable to assume Tarzan is a woman (either that or a homosexual or a liar).

BUT, given that Tarzan has posted "he" was just copying someone *else's* post for them, I guess it makes sense to assume...?

Tarzan,

Yes, I would react differently to a woman who had decided to have an abortion than to her husband, as I would try harder not to *personalize* what I had to say, but that's probably just sexism on my part.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 21, 2000.

"Oh what a difference a couple of consonants make."

It's actually only one consonant and a vowel, but AFAIK, we're not yet playing Wheel of Fortune.

Frank's been a bit remiss in his reading lately. I noticed that elsewhere. Perhaps I should gently [or not so gently] slap him upside his head? Frank: Slap yourself upside your head and tell your hand, "Anita sent you." [grin]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 21, 2000.

We posted at the same time, Frank. I'd already read the other, so I recognized verbatim the post that Tarzan presented and KNEW it was a cut/paste job. I admit that he could have made it more obvious.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 21, 2000.

Anita,

OW!

Also, I read the other first, and thought that he/she was posting to both places so that the post wouldn't be missed. My mistake, I guess ;-) . I guess I was also a bit prejudiced by the "Nerd Rustler" thing.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 22, 2000.

Tarzan,

You wrote, "It should be illegal for ANYONE to cause the death of another seperate(sic) being. It should not be illegal for anyone to alter their body".

The bottom line is that one person's rights end where another person's rights begin. You are obviously intelligent enough not to argue that a mother should be allowed to let her baby starve to death because it is inconvenient to feed the baby. Thus, you acknowledge that the baby's right to life outweighs the mother's right to pursue happiness. You argue that the mother's right to pursue happiness somehow becomes more important than the baby's right to life if the baby is still in the womb. You try to support this contradiction by claiming that it is not a "seperate"(sic) being. You claim that this is pertinent because the baby, to paraphrase, "is not capable of sustaining life in and of itself, until very late in its development".

Since this is your argument, are you in favor of outlawing all abortions beyond the point of pregnancy where the baby is capable of living outside the womb (late twenty something to early thirty something weeks of gestation)?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 22, 2000.

gilda,

It is my place to stand up for the unborn who can't stand up for themselves; because I won't abandon all morals and accept that the heinous killing of unborn babies is acceptable, I am labeled a bigot by the politically correct. Considering the source, madam, I wear the title as a badge of honor.

I've worked with people like you, Gilda, who always put their job before their kids. Usually it is their kids who end up shooting their classmates, or carjacking vehicles, or dealing drugs, or committing suicide, or...well you get the picture.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 22, 2000.

Keep Abortion Legal,

We all have pressure and responsibility. It is no excuse to kill your baby. You wrote, "My idea of a future family is one in which both parents are reasonably happy, who have a sound marriage and who are mentally and financially stable and who are capable and happy to raise children".

That is a pleasant best-case scenario. After starting your family in the perfect setting outlined above, what will you do when one of your criteria becomes imperfect? Kill all of your children?

My idea of a family is a group of people where a parent would die for a child because the bond of love is so great, not where a parent would kill a child because its life meant so little.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 22, 2000.

J,

As an interesting tidbit, one of my pop's claims to fame is that he was born in a log cabin in Montana in the early 1920s. What privations they had to go through and what a picnic it was in the Winter is hard for me to imagine, but I'm very grateful *his* parents didn't say "it's just too much work", and had their children.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 22, 2000.

Frank,

Sounds like you come from good stock.

Feats that most people did without a thought in that era, look like momentous sacrifices compared to the incredible selfishness of today. I thank God for my parents, and your post has reminded me to thank God for my grandparents, as well.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 22, 2000.

It's pretty obvious that Y2J and Frank are part of the "parenthood posse", people who think their progeny are the most important things in the entire world. These are the same people who want to limit free speech for everyone so their kids won't run the risk of seeing a pair of boobs on Showtime after 9 PM. These are also the same peeople who are unreliable at work, coming in late and leaving early, forcing their coworkers to pick up their slack because of their "precious" children. It is their children who run amok in public places and restaurants, and it is they who get irate if you are bothered by the fact that their obnoxious little crotch crickets are throwing a fit in your restaurant booth.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against the little monsters themselves. It's not their fault their parents think they hung the moon. I blame the parents, people who believe that having a family negates any other responsibilities they may have, people who think having children is so important to them that it should be everyone else's number one priority. After all, it's the only thing they can think about. Anyone who disagrees with these fertility fascists is automatically a monster or worse, a "child hater".

-- Citizen Ruth (ruth_parker@yahoo.com), June 22, 2000.

From one "keep"er to another... :)

Luck has nothing to do with the number of unwanted pregnancies that I have had. It takes effort, time, money, side effects, alternatives, follow through, commitment, and the thought of having to make this type of decision to keep unwanted pregnancies at bay. I have practiced birth control since I was a teenager, and I'm no youngster now.

I am scared to death that menopause may well assist in my having an unplanned pregnancy. I would have to consider the alternatives carefully due to pre-existing health issues that worsen with pregnancy, my age and ability to raise a child at this age, and many other considerations. Of course, my husband would definately have input into the decision. My first instinct would be to consider adoption. That's not what's important but you can see that even after all of these years, not getting pregnant is still very much an issue to be dealt with daily.

Other than life/health threatening possibilities, school, work, age, money, marital status, etc. are things that can be used to justify an abortion. If you really think about it, the child would be inconvenient and against existing goals. The decision of convenience comes when someone opts to have an abortion to get rid of this inconveniece. OR, they could alter their plans (sometimes drastically) to accomodate this precious inconvenience.

I'm sorry it pisses you off when us "lucky" folks assume the choice was of convenience. Actually, you told us that it would disrupt your educational and financial goals which would make having a child inconvenient. I assumed nothing. I'm sure you feel that you made the right decision and I am not debating that at all. It's really none of my business.

Let me restate that I am simply encouraging ALL women who engage in sexual activities to take responsibility so they are "lucky" enough not to have to make this decision. Yet again, I will apologize if my desire for accountability for women who have the "last chance" to say "no" pisses you off. It's nothing personal. I'm trying to set an example and indicate that most unwanted pregnancies can be avoided in the first place and then we wouldn't have to worry how a fetus is destroyed or when.

I wish you the best in your education, career, and family life. You are thoughtful and motivated and I respect your choices. They are right for you. So long for now...

-- keep the faith... (booann77@hotmail.com), June 22, 2000.

Citizen Ruth,

I can't speak for Frank, but I will address your post sentence by sentence.

1)Of course my children mean the world to me.
2)I'm completely for free speech, even your drivel.
3)Wrong again. See my earlier post above to gilda.
4) No, wrong yet again.
5)"Monsters"? Either a lie, or you are unable to differentiate between reality and fiction.
6)"Fault"? Hardly a fault, child's or parent's, when parents love their children.
7) Faulty assumptions, clueless conclusion.
8)Wrong (yet again).
9)"Fertility fascists"? See my post above to gilda about being called a bigot. I would not say that you are a "child hater", but you probably never had children, and you really regret it.

Thanks for stopping in to share 9 sentences of information, most of which was inaccurate. You did get it right that my children mean the world to me, though.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 22, 2000.

booann:

I agree with you that contraception is the way to go. Unfortunately, many of the folks who are opposed to abortion are also opposed to contraception.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 22, 2000.

Anita,

Come on now, "many of the folks who are opposed to abortion are also opposed to contraception". You don't really believe what you just posted, do you? I would like to know your definition of "many", and where you came up with your source of information, assuming it wasn't the top of your head.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 22, 2000.

Anita, Indeed, folks who are anti abortion and anti contraceptive will, no doubt have children (if physically possible). In this case, I would think that they realize the consequences and will make babies until the cows come home. I'm also a believer in zero population growth - I know, abortions help in this matter.

This issue has no easy answers with values, religion, and rights involved. Discussions like this make us all realize valid positions other than our own and this can only bring "sides" together.

Better forms of birth control are definately needed. I am in a very high risk category for taking birth control pills, but I take them for severe PMS (ok - whatever) as well as contraception. I don't like any of the alternatives so I go blindly along, accepting the risks of the birth control pill to counteract pregnancy and the other problem I have that "doesn't really exist". This is a difficult problem for me and the time is near when I will have to make some sort of change. If this change (or menopause) causes me to become pregnant, who knows what I might think about abortion!! JUST KIDDING!!

Thanks for all your input into this forum. I don't get to really read and fully digest many valuable posts, but I think there's many that you write that make the very point I would make if I had the time to respond. (Great minds think alike!!) Looking forward to more....

-- keep the faith... (booann77@hotmail.com), June 22, 2000.

Stop and J, Stop trying to push your beliefs on me. I don't believe that abortion is murder. The aborting of a fetus is NOT killing a human being. I believe that the spirit enters the body at the time of birth, not while it's in the womb.

You are not speaking for the unborn child; they can not be spoken for they don't have a human spirit.

There are many reasons a woman may chose to abort a fetus. I've had two and don't regret it. I don't know of anyone who had a child and regretted not getting an abortion, though *I* have regretted some (just a joke!).

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 22, 2000.

Ruth, you said,

It's pretty obvious that Y2J and Frank are part of the "parenthood posse", people who think their progeny are the most important things in the entire world.

No, not in the entire world, but *to me* they are the most important things.

These are the same people who want to limit free speech for everyone so their kids won't run the risk of seeing a pair of boobs on Showtime after 9 PM.

No, showtime is a service you pay for, if you want to buy porno magazines, go ahead. If you want to see boobs on T.V., and are willing to pay for it, be my guest. On public T.V. though, you're right, I would want to place restrictions on what is shown. I can't believe what is considered acceptable NOW, if we started letting things get put on @ 9:00, soon it would be 8:30 then 24/7. Considering the amount of time that kids across America watch television, I don't think it's wise to encourage production of the depiction of increasingly graphic sexual and violent acts.

These are also the same peeople who are unreliable at work, coming in late and leaving early,

Nope, I was doing that LONG before I had kids :-) . Just kidding, actually "responsibility" is one of my words to live by. Your statement to me is really a slap in the face-- and undeserved.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 22, 2000.

Dang Off.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 22, 2000.

Maria

Stop and J, Stop trying to push your beliefs on me.

Simply expressing ones own belief's does not constitute an attempt to push beliefs on to you! It is however a basis for discussion/debate. If you don't like debate, find another thread.

-- Stop The Murder (abortion@kills_our_kids.com), June 22, 2000.

J:

Do you think that "abstinence only" sex education is desirable? If contraception is mentioned, funding is withdrawn. Let's see who's promoted this: Abstinence-Only Sex Education.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 22, 2000.

Maria,

I hate to rain on your parade, dear, but just because YOU believe something doesn't mean that it is true.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 22, 2000.

J, you're not raining and I'm not having a parade. I never claimed it to be the truth, just something I believe. We won't know the truth about that until we die, if at all!

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 22, 2000.

Stop, I stand corrected; you're not pushing your beliefs on me, just condeming me as a murderer. Do you believe it's ok to kill doctors who perform abortions?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 22, 2000.

Anita,

Either you are very confused, or you are trying to muddy the water.

You claimed that "many" who oppose abortion also oppose contraception. You then trot out a link to an article about the Republican congress sneaking "abstinence only" sex education funding into a bill.

Let me try and explain it to you. Just because someone is against teaching CHILDREN about contraceptives, it does not mean that they are also against all contraceptive use. Get it? Your argument is about as coherent as saying that because I won't let my child operate a chain saw, I must be in favor of banning all chain saws.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 22, 2000.

Do you believe it's ok to kill doctors who perform abortions?

Here is a response from me on that same question asked on a previous threadOT-Abortion the debate continues [4/28/2000]

flora

"Wasn't there an 'abortion doctor' who was killed by a 'pro life-er' awhile back?

I'd sincerely be thankful if you'd jot down your judgement on that incident."

No excuse what so ever for taking any doctors life. I in no way promote that kind of behavior.

-- Stop The Murder (abortion@kills_our_kids.com), April 28, 2000.

-- Stop The Murder (abortion@kills_our_kids.com), June 22, 2000.

Stop, I stand corrected; you're not pushing your beliefs on me, just condeming me as a murderer.

I believe abortion is murder. If you have had an abortion as a means of birth control then I guess the shoe fits.

-- Stop The Murder (abortion@kills_our_kids.com), June 22, 2000.

Ooops! That sentence should have read...

I believe most abortion is murder. If you have had an abortion as a means of birth control then I guess the shoe fits.

-- Stop The Murder (abortion@kills_our_kids.com), June 22, 2000.

Ooops! That sentence should have read...

I believe most abortion is murder

Indeed. When do you feel abortion is not murder?

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), June 22, 2000.

Just because someone is against teaching CHILDREN about contraceptives, it does not mean that they are also against all contraceptive use.

I think the problem here is that a number of the people who have abortions are, in fact, children. Thus, teaching them about contraceptives can potentially reduce the number of abortions that occur, which would likely be beneficial to both sides of the debate.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), June 22, 2000.

When do you feel abortion is not murder?

In those RARE instances where there must be a choice made between the mothers life and that of a child during pregnancy.

-- Stop The Murder (abortion@kills_our_kids.com), June 22, 2000.

Hmm,

Abortion is *always* killing a human being, but there are times when I could find it acceptable. For example, in trisomy 18 (incompatable with life), there doesn't seem to be any reason to continue a pregnancy when we know the fetus won't survive anyway.

My trouble with using this end of the spectrum for discussion (Anita, this is to your earlier post as well) is that abortion advocates will say that if you make one exception, you have to say abortion for everyone is acceptable, which I strongly disagree with.

But I'll make you and Anita a deal: I'll agree that in such situations where the patient's *physician* (not aromatherapist) states that the mother's life is in *grave* danger, or if the fetus is not expected to live or has a MAJOR congenital abnormality (such as anencephaly) then under those circumstances it would be o.k. to have an abortion.

I'll even go so far as to add in the case of rape where the mother is willing to file a police report, and prosecute the offender if he's caught that's o.k. too (in the interests of broad mindedness :-) ). I have to put the above fascist sounding caveats in to keep everyone who wants an abortion from just saying "rape".

Of course the flip side of my willingness to meet you half-way is that I'd like every other abortion to be illegal, with punishment given to the physicians who carry them out.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 22, 2000.

Hi again, STM.

You seem to imply that in the rare instance where one has to choose between saving the woman/mother or the foetus/baby that one should choose to save the woman.

But WHY would you choose to save the woman? Now, this is a moral issue, so you should have a reason -- a principle; your decision should not be arbitrary or by means of a coin-flip.

My point is that the woman has a constitutional, as well as a natural right to life. All of her life. And that a foetus cannot have one at the same time. The following question highlights a practical reason for this: what do you do if there is a conflict, and you can only save one?

The answer to the next question would indicate the moral principle underlying your decision: WHY would you choose as you have?

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), June 22, 2000.

I'll even go so far as to add in the case of rape where the mother is willing to file a police report, and prosecute the offender if he's caught that's o.k. too (in the interests of broad mindedness :-) ). I have to put the above fascist sounding caveats in to keep everyone who wants an abortion from just saying "rape".

Actually, I've never understood the rape argument from this side of the issue. Why would the case of rape affect the status of the fetus?

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), June 22, 2000.

But, J...it's the teenagers who are having sex. You're never going to reduce the abortion rate if only the old folks are privy to contraceptive information.

SIECUS report.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 22, 2000.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 22, 2000.

Anita,

It appears as if you view abortion as just another means of birth control. I don't want to reduce the abortion rate, I want to do away with the barbaric procedure altogether.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 22, 2000.

It appears as if you view abortion as just another means of birth control. I don't want to reduce the abortion rate, I want to do away with the barbaric procedure altogether.

And by allowing teenagers access to contraceptives, you can help make this a reality. Is that not what you want?

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), June 22, 2000.

Hi eve

But WHY would you choose to save the woman?

I have made no choice in who is saved or sacrificed. I will now add to what I previously stated to better clarify what I have already stated:

I simply state abortion to be justifiable under those conditions if that is the decision/choice of the family involved.

-- Stop The Murder (abortion@kills_our_kids.com), June 22, 2000.

hmm,

How exactly does allowing teenagers access to contraceptives help to do away with abortions?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 22, 2000.

Hmm,

It doesn't, but the situation I described would result in many LESS abortions than we have now.

A less-is-more kind of thing.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 22, 2000.

How exactly does allowing teenagers access to contraceptives help to do away with abortions?

If teenagers don't get pregnant, then there is no possibility for them to have an abortion.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), June 22, 2000.

hmm,

You wrote, "If teenagers don't get pregnant, then there is no possibility for them to have an abortion".

Your statement is true, but it does not answer my question.
How will giving teenagers contraceptives ban all non teens who get pregnant from having abortions?
How will giving teenagers contraceptives guarantee that they won't get pregnant?

Giving teenagers contraceptives MAY decrease the number of teenagers who get pregnant, which MAY, in turn, decrease the number of teenagers who have abortions. But giving teenagers contraceptives in no way helps to eliminate ALL abortions.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 22, 2000.

"The bottom line is that one person's rights end where another person's rights begin."

A woman and a fetus are not separate. A woman and a baby are.

"You are obviously intelligent enough not to argue that a mother should be allowed to let her baby starve to death because it is inconvenient to feed the baby."

A baby is not a fetus. An apple blossom is not an apple. An acorn is not a nut. What is so hard about this for you?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), June 22, 2000.

Giving teenagers contraceptives MAY decrease the number of teenagers who get pregnant, which MAY, in turn, decrease the number of teenagers who have abortions. But giving teenagers contraceptives in no way helps to eliminate ALL abortions.

This appears to be an argument over semantics. If you decrease the number of teenagers who have abortions, then you are decreasing the total number of abortions. Remember, your question was this:

How exactly does allowing teenagers access to contraceptives help to do away with abortions?

If one can reduce a subset of the group of people that has abortions, then you are reducing the overall number of abortions. Thus, one is helping to do away with abortions.

You are correct in that this does not address the issue of non-teens or teens who choose not to use contraceptives. However, I was specifically addressing this comment of yours:

Just because someone is against teaching CHILDREN about contraceptives, it does not mean that they are also against all contraceptive use.

The issue at hand was that those who opposed abortions also opposed teaching children about contraceptives. The only point I was making is that teaching children about contraceptives can help further the goal to eliminate abortions.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), June 22, 2000.

I should rephrase this to:

The issue at hand was that some of those who opposed abortions also opposed teaching children about contraceptives.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), June 22, 2000.

Evenin STM,

You said that,

I simply state abortion to be justifiable under those conditions if that is the decision/choice of the family involved.

But WHY do YOU feel its justifiable in that circumstance, while not justifiable in other circumstances?

My position is that its justifiable in that circumstance because the woman has a right to her own life. And that rights are moral concepts that guide the actions of human beings in social contexts. (I know thats a mouthful. A rational theory of rights would take a very long post to lay out; but try to bear with me for now.) Those rights include the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. And they're natural (arise in social situations because of our nature as human beings) as well as Constitutional.

A foetus cannot be given the same right to life that the woman/mother has, not only because its inapplicable in principle, but because, practically speaking, youd have the potential for morally impossible conflicts of interest between a parasite (the foetus) and its host (the woman/mother)  like the conflict were discussing.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), June 22, 2000.

1)Of course my children mean the world to me.

Just because you're happy to have children doesn't mean everyone is happy to have kids.

3)Wrong again. See my earlier post above to gilda.

Are you seriously saying that parents put in the kind of hours their childless coworkers put in? Either you own your own business, or you don't have a job at all. There's time off for parent teacher conferences, little league, day care, on and on and on. As if that weren't bad enough, these paragons of productivity steal time out of your day by hitting you up for brownies, wrapping paper, a school trip to nuke the fag whales for Jesus, any other cause you can think of. God help you if you don't wish to participate, because then you're a "child hater" and there's something wrong with you.

4) No, wrong yet again.

Clearly you've become so obsesed with your own progeny that you can't see the forest for the little monkeys in the trees. It's hard to go anywhere without being accosted by little brats and their family frazzled parents. My absolute favorite are the people who insist on bringing their little darlings with them wherever they go, no matter how inappropriate. We saw Mission Impossible 2 last night at 9:30, "saw" being the operative word, since there were so many crying infants in the theater that we couldn't hear a damn word they were saying. There was a case recently in our home town of an elderly woman who was knocked out of her walker by a couple of rampaging nine year olds. When she complained to the store manager, the mother of these two little monsters cursed this frail, elderly woman for having the nerve to get in her way.

5)"Monsters"? Either a lie, or you are unable to differentiate between reality and fiction.

Again, you make it obvious how parenthood can destroy objectivity. There are some people who's children are well behaved, granted (although it's difficult to believe yours are in that number given your own unwillingness to consider other people outside your family). But to claim that no children are monsters is sheer idiocy.

6)"Fault"? Hardly a fault, child's or parent's, when parents love their children.

It is a fault when parents demand that everyone give their children the same amount of affection and consideration they themselves give them. I am under no obligation to sacrifice my well being or comfort for your li'l darling. If your kid runs over my foot with a grocery cart at the store, I'm probably going to swear loudly, regardless of how you talk to him at home. If your kid puts his hand in my food at a restaurant, I'm going to speak very harshly to him. If your kid climbs my fence and starts hitting my dog with a baseball bat, I'm going to grab the little fucker by the back of his neck, shake him really hard, and keep him there until the police come. Just because you think his behavior is cute or well- intentioned doesn't mean I have to put up with it.

7) Faulty assumptions, clueless conclusion.

I sure hope you aren't teaching your kids at home. No one deserves to grow up in ignorance, even complete brats.

9)"Fertility fascists"? See my post above to gilda about being called a bigot. I would not say that you are a "child hater", but you probably never had children, and you really regret it.

Hey, you're the one who wants to make other people's reproductive decisions, and to guilt trip the ones who decide not to. This is probably some screwed up form of sublimation because you regret having your own kids. Personally, I have no regrets.

-- Citizen Ruth (ruth_parker@yahoo.com), June 22, 2000.

First, Frank, I'm not bitter, but this work issue hits a nerve with me, for I still remember a womb-brained woman I worked with, in a very stressful job, converting from manual posting to the first computers for our institution. She always used the excuse of her kids to take off work and it piled more on me, and I felt that, By GAWWD, when you take a job you work,. and your kids should not be such babies that they can't understand this. No wonder people in the work-place are so god-damned lousy and lazy nowadays. If you want to stay home with your kids, then keep your ass home. Bitter, maybe--for I had a kid too, and just because I stayed and worked doesn't mean I didn't love my kid.

This wasn't just about my career. This was also about responsibility. By doing my job I was teaching my kid responsibility. He now, at age 40, has the best reputation of anyone I know among his colleagues for being a hard worker and dependable. He's also a wonderful dad. Why do you people equate love with shirking work time to be with kids. My kid was loved and he knew it.

Citizen Ruth, you made my day. "Parenthood Posse"--I love it. I call them womb-brained, but Parenthood Possee is very apt. Yes, they do think everyone should just fall all over themselves for their little darlings.

I'm glad there are others out there that feel as I do. Just because I chose to have only one child, and made damn sure I didn't have any more, didn't mean that I intended to make a spoiled fool out of my one and only. I've seen these brats, of parents who think their rotten children are perfect. They make me sick. In fact I saw this gawd-awful woman in Wal-Mart yesterday with three of them. She should have been neutered before the fact. Grandma was with them and she said in a loud voice, "These children are my grandchildren and they are brats!!"

keep the faith, I too see no point in a woman getting pregnant that doesn't want too. I too practiced birth control. First, way back in the dark ages with a diaphram (sp) and second with birth control pills, and after a scare that I was pregnant, with band-aid surgery. Ahh Freedom from fear of pregnancy. Men don't even have a clue about how some of us are not interested in being baby factories. My child was the most important person in my life, but I did have another life, which most balance people do.

But if someone slips up, they should not be made to bear a baby they do not want. Slip-ups do happen. For instance I sometimes threw up birth control pills. (This is what gave me the scare.) Some women forget to take them regularly--and that's understandable. I forget my vitamins half the time. People are human, and not everyone is perfect. So they shouldn't be made to have a child they don't want.

J, I had a very nice child. Polite, hard-working, funny, wasn't a vandal, thief, etc, or hateful, and was kind to animals and respectful to older adults.

When my elderly mother was in her late 80's and was very sick, I couldn't hire anyone to help me take care of her. My son, in his 20's at the time, came home and moved in with her and helped care for her while I was at work.

And J, I'd like to explain something else that in you probably can't comprehend. First, I explained to my kid early on that although he was first in my heart, he could *not* always be first in my daily life. There were times when--yes, my job had to come first and it did. It wasn't because I was caught up in material things, it was because for quite some time, I was our main support, and I owed my livlihood to my job. And my kid did not carjack, run the streets, deal drugs, or commit suicide. He came home from school, took care of the pets, washed the breakfast dishes, and went next door to his grandmas. It's the spoiled brats, who've done much of the shooting I might add.

Second, my mother was in fragile health, and sometimes she had to come first. To always put a child first before anyone, or anything else in life is to set that child up for a lifetime of disappointments as there will be many times, if they ever have enough sense to grow up, that society will not put them first.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), June 22, 2000.

J:

"It appears as if you view abortion as just another means of birth control. I don't want to reduce the abortion rate, I want to do away with the barbaric procedure altogether."

I've never seen abortion as another means of birth control. I simply understand that women who wanted abortions have ALWAYS had them. You seem to think that abortions can be eliminated by legislation. History has shown this to be totally false. I think the going rate when I was a youngster was $250 for a backalley abortion, closer to $1000 for an abortion done by a medical doctor. My best friend after high-school had an abortion by her company doctor right there in his office in the company building. A girl in my 8th grade class said her mother would kill her if she got pregnant again, as she'd already had two abortions.

Look into the History of Abortion in America, J. Check out how many women had abortions in the early 1800's and during the depression. If you think laws will change what women will do with their bodies, you're fooling yourself. Laws simply penalize the poor, who can't afford to obtain SAFE abortions. Women with money will either have access to doctors willing to perform the service here in the states, or have the means to take a plane to Canada or any of the other countries who allow abortion on demand.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 23, 2000.

Tarzan,

I asked you if you were in favor of outlawing all abortions beyond the point of pregnancy where the baby is capable of living outside the womb. You answered with your "apple blossom is not an apple" analogy. Try looking at it from an "unripe apple is not a ripe apple" perspective.

Are you in favor of outlawing all abortions beyond the point of pregnancy where the baby is capable of living outside the womb, or are you not?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 23, 2000.

hmm,

You missed my point. Your use of the words "decrease" and "reduce" show that you missed my point. My word choice was "eliminate". I fully understand your argument, but my point is not about the NUMBER of abortions being performed, it is about the PERFORMING of abortions. I am not for the elimination of abortion incrementally, I am for the elimination of all abortion, now.

The issue at hand was actually Anita's claim that "many" who opposed abortion also opposed contraception. She never did support that claim.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 23, 2000.

This thread is now getting a little long. Lets move discussion over here Support for abortion waning - Day #5

-- Stop The Murder (abortion@kills_our_kids.com), June 23, 2000.

This thread is now getting a little long. Lets move discussion over here Support for abortion waning - Day #5

-- Stop The Murder (abortion@kills_our_kids.com), June 23, 2000.

You missed my point. Your use of the words "decrease" and "reduce" show that you missed my point. My word choice was "eliminate".

No, go back and reread the what you wrote to me. You wrote this:

How exactly does allowing teenagers access to contraceptives help to do away with abortions?

You didn't use the word "eliminate" in this sentence. Instead, you used the phrase help to do away with. "Reducing" does indeed "help to do away with." If you really meant to say something different, then that's another matter. I fully understand your argument, but my point is not about the NUMBER of abortions being performed, it is about the PERFORMING of abortions. I am not for the elimination of abortion incrementally, I am for the elimination of all abortion, now.

Understood. However, given a choice between elimination of abortion incrementally by allowing teenagers access to contraceptives and not allowing them access at all (which would result in more abortions), would you choose to allow them access?

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), June 23, 2000.

hmm,

I guess my choice of words was not clear. "To do away with" was supposed to be understood as eliminating, upon which I believe we agree. However, I meant eliminating INSTANTLY, not eliminating INCREMENTALLY. I should have been more concise. That being said, on to your last question.

You wrote, "given a choice between elimination of abortion incrementally by allowing teenagers access to contraceptives and not allowing them access at all (which would result in more abortions) would you choose to allow them access?

First, it does not automatically follow that not allowing teenagers access to contraceptives would result in more abortions. On the surface it appears as this would be so, but let's look a little deeper. Without contraception, there is a certain number of teenagers who are not willing to risk pregnancy and thus avoid sex. With the introduction of contraception, the overall number of teenagers having sex increases. Because contraception is not 100% effective, the total NUMBER of pregnancies (and abortions) may in fact, increase, even though the PERCENTAGE of teenagers getting pregnant decreases. That being said, let me finally shed more light on my position on this issue.

I believe that teenagers should not be having sex. I also understand that teenagers have sex. This does not mean, in my opinion, that we should throw up our hands and say, "anything goes". If a parent wants to expose their children to contraception, that is their choice. I don't believe that children should be exposed to contraception in the public schools, however, because this is contrary to what many parents want for their children. If a parent is adamant that their son or daughter learn about contraception, then they should teach the child about it in the home.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 23, 2000.

I am going to the updated thread.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 23, 2000.

This thread is a chore and a bore.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), June 24, 2000.